Report of the Head of Legal, HR and Democratic Services detailing an application to vary a premises licence in respect of Pizza Chicken Kebab Hot 2 You, 1A Bedford Place, Polygon, Southampton, SO15 2BY, attached.
Minutes:
The Sub-Committee considered the application for a premises licence in respect of Pizza Chicken Kebab Hot 2 You, 1A Bedford Place, Polygon, Southampton, SO15 2BY. (Copy of report circulated with the agenda and appended to the signed minutes).
PC Harris, PC Wood and PC Conway, Hampshire Constabulary, Mr Mohammed, Applicant (Owner), and Ms Sharma, Counsel for Applicant were present and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting.
The Sub-Committee considered the decision in confidential session in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005.
RESOLVED that the application to vary the premises licence be refused.
REASONS
The Sub-Committee considered the application to vary a premises licence at Pizza Chicken Kebab Hot 2 You and gave due regard to the Licensing Act 2003, the Licensing Objectives, statutory guidance, the adopted statement of Licensing Policy, human rights legislation and the evidence submitted by all parties, both written and given orally today.
The Sub-Committee particularly noted the following points raised by the applicant:-
1 breaches regarding trading outside the hours permitted dated back to December 2010;
2 despite two previous reviews and concerns raised there might have been difficulty with regards to language and understanding the licence;
3 SIA security guards assisted the police in preventing crime and disorder;
4 the number of incidents in the immediate vicinity of the premises, specifically relating to Bedford Place and the premises in particular;
5 extension of SIA staff hours would maintain the current position or reduce the impact of the premises;
6 an increase in hours was not to target those leaving the area but to bring the premises in line with others trading later, without door staff or CCTV conditions;
7 there was a considerable difference between Friday and Saturday and Tuesday nights (being a student night);
8 that as of today the applicant had installed an upgraded CCTV system to enable better compliance with conditions; and
9 the financial impact.
In considering the above, the Sub-Committee balanced evidence presented by the police confirming that despite two previous reviews of the premises, the latest being in April 2011, the premises continued to fail to comply with conditions attached to the licence, specifically relating to the maintenance and inspection of CCTV and the production of CCTV when required. It was also noted that police evidence showed that the conditions attached to the licence had been provided in writing in the applicant’s first language.
Whilst it was accepted that other premises might have longer trading hours and no requirement for door staff or CCTV, the Sub-Committee considered it a relevant factor that those specific requirements had been placed upon the premises due to specific issues previously identified relating to the premises. The Sub-Committee concluded that the fact that the conditions had resulted in a lower number of incidents at this particular premises, showed that the conditions imposed were having a positive effect on the prevention of crime and disorder at the premises and in the immediate vicinity. It was felt that on the balance of probabilities, any reduction in those requirements would lead to an increase of those issues.
Whilst it was noted that other premises did not have a formal requirement or condition requiring the use of CCTV, police evidence indicated that they all had functioning CCTV systems in place.
The Sub-Committee considered the difference between Friday and Saturday nights and Tuesday (student night) and noted that the figures did show a difference between the two, but nonetheless felt that Tuesday remained a significantly busy period to warrant retention of door staff.
The Sub-Committee considered the figures relating to incidents in the area and noted that only one incident was directly linked to the premises in question. However, it considered the nature and severity of that incident to be such that it raised considerable concern. More importantly, the Sub-Committee considered the response of staff at the premises, both in failing to report and log the incident and the subsequent inadequacies regarding the provision of CCTV to be of very serious concern.
The Sub-Committee accepted legal advice given in public session relating to the Cumulative Impact Policy (CIP) which created a rebuttable presumption that applications of this type should be refused unless the applicant was able to establish that the proposed licensable activities would not, on the balance of probabilities, lead to an increase in or add to the issues already experienced within the designated area.
Accordingly and in light of all the above, the Sub-Committee was not satisfied that the applicant had, on the balance of probabilities, established that the variation application or any part of it, would not lead to an increase in the issues in the area.
Supporting documents: